Time to upgrade the CAD?

[manovermetal]

I have been using Alibre for a long time. I've got the funds to upgrade my CAD & CAM software and evaluating my options. I design tools and CNC machine parts and am looking for a professional CAD solution is robust and supported by a company with a strong commitment and long term vision for the platform. I imagine I am not alone. What CAD packages would you consider migrating to, and why?

 

[jhiker]

..this should be interesting.....

 

[dammerel]

pen and paper...

 

[dwc]

I hear from many CAD users in several domains.
They use mostly CATIA, Solidworks, Inventor and GM.
If I just try and order the amount of moaning I hear about things not working as they should,
program crashing and difficult user interface,etc., I end up with the following: (from most moaning to least moaning)
Most moaning: CATIA
2nd most moaning: Solidworks
3rd most moaning: Inventor
Least moaning: GM Design.

I have to admit that there are less people using GM (and I am one of them) so maybe I hear less moaning because of that, but for the others the number of people are similar.
It appears to me that Corporate IT people in general seen to think that CATIA is the go-to reliable product. They users I hear say the opposite, it is the least stable and has an ungainly user interface that hinders good work. The moaning from CATIA users is deafening in comparison to the others.
Of course this is not rigourous statistics (if statistics are ever rigourous), but it may have something to say.
Personally I have been using only AD/GM for the last several years, so I really can't make a comparison, only guage the noise I hear from others.
Don

 

[fitzbond]

I will not take the bait

 

[Giecon.nl]

After the latest name change and al the fuss that came with it I did some research to see if I should pay my maintenance fee or let it skip.
Short answer: renewed again.
Long answer: switching to another parametric CAD makes no sense at this time. The big boys bring no more stability or features that really save tons of time. The only thing that is for sure: you will pay more.
Having said that I'm slightly concerned where GM is heading. They also have GM design direct, which is Spaceclaim a direct editing CAD system. Having trialled several other packages over the last month Spaceclaim is the only one I haven't crossed of the list after some playing with... Crossed of: Ironcad, T-flex, Kubotec, zw3d, SW, SE, Inventor.....

 

[Dave H]

From my experience and what I have heard:

Catia - VERY expensive. Someone told me $62k/seat, $20k+ per yr. maintenance. Very powerful. Not real user friendly.
Inventor - $5-7k to buy. Have not used it. Supposed to he a very capable package. UI is a little clunky. Not a large user base
Solidworks - $5-7k to buy. About $1500/yr. maintenance. Very capable. Smooth UI. Large installed base. Similar UI to GMD.
Pro E - Do not know cost. Powerful. Clunky UI. Not a large installed user base.
Geomagic Design - $2400 to buy. $400/yr. maintenance. Similar UI to Solidworks. Pretty capable. Not a large installed user base.

I think in the end you need to use what your clients require. If they want your original files you will have to use what they tell you to use. If all they want is drawings, and/or finished parts/product, use what you like and can afford.

 

[Lew_Merrick]

As a multi-refugee CAD user (Euclid, Generic CADD/3DD, etc.), my fears for Alibre/GMD are (shall we say) well honed and my experience with other CAD systems (SolidEdge, SolidWorks, ProEngineer/CREO, Catia, Unigraphics/NX, etc.) is fairly broad. I see no other product on the market that has the potential shown by GMD. 3D Systems does not seem to show the understanding of this potential that I expect -- their concentration on 3D printing has them blinded. As somebody who has been working with 3D printing technology since 1983 (NASA underpinnings), I realize how much development is necessary to turn it into a truly "ready for primetime" product set. (To give you just one citation here, the materials properties for 3D printing media are seriously overstated and incomplete!)

My points, made many times here, include: (1) Expansion & improvement of constraints would allow the simple development of an internal, apt, and powerful kinematic analysis tool quite simply; (2) The inclusion of a spreadsheet tool would change the system for the better in a multitude of ways that would leapfrog the competition in areas ranging from the Equation Editor to analytic and true parametric design operations, to development of text tables for drawings and other documentation, and the like; (3) More focus on existing partnerships for expansion & development of allied utilities such as FEA and CAM rather than the poorly thought out alliance DST (who's products also fall into the "not ready for primetime" category from my and numerous other skilled users perspectives) is in order; Etc.

I am not suggesting that 3D printing is not going to become a world-changing technology, only that much more work is going to be required before it can live up to its potential. What I am suggesting is that the market for small-firm CAD/CAM technologies is seriously underserved today and is ripe for a revolutionary expansion! Geomagic Design and a few associated partners could take over a significant portion of this growing market. All the pieces to pull this off are within grasp today. This is a market of some 4.5 million "seats" in the U.S. alone. If 3D Systems could take even 10% of this market it would represent (450,000 X $400/year =) $180 million/year in gross revenues -- not counting their existing market. At 50% of this market it would represent (2,500,000 X $400/year =) $1 billion/year in gross revenues. I know that the same "trend" is ongoing in the rest of the world, I just do not have the "numbers" to define its potential. This is what 3D Systems is overlooking as I see things.

 

[fitzbond]

What Lew said. Need an icon for two thumbs up

As a multi-refugee CAD user (Euclid, Generic CADD/3DD, etc.), my fears for Alibre/GMD are (shall we say) well honed and my experience with other CAD systems (SolidEdge, SolidWorks, ProEngineer/CREO, Catia, Unigraphics/NX, etc.) is fairly broad. I see no other product on the market that has the potential shown by GMD. 3D Systems does not seem to show the understanding of this potential that I expect -- their concentration on 3D printing has them blinded. As somebody who has been working with 3D printing technology since 1983 (NASA underpinnings), I realize how much development is necessary to turn it into a truly "ready for primetime" product set. (To give you just one citation here, the materials properties for 3D printing media are seriously overstated and incomplete!)

My points, made many times here, include: (1) Expansion & improvement of constraints would allow the simple development of an internal, apt, and powerful kinematic analysis tool quite simply; (2) The inclusion of a spreadsheet tool would change the system for the better in a multitude of ways that would leapfrog the competition in areas ranging from the Equation Editor to analytic and true parametric design operations, to development of text tables for drawings and other documentation, and the like; (3) More focus on existing partnerships for expansion & development of allied utilities such as FEA and CAM rather than the poorly thought out alliance DST (who's products also fall into the "not ready for primetime" category from my and numerous other skilled users perspectives) is in order; Etc.

I am not suggesting that 3D printing is not going to become a world-changing technology, only that much more work is going to be required before it can live up to its potential. What I am suggesting is that the market for small-firm CAD/CAM technologies is seriously underserved today and is ripe for a revolutionary expansion! Geomagic Design and a few associated partners could take over a significant portion of this growing market. All the pieces to pull this off are within grasp today. This is a market of some 4.5 million "seats" in the U.S. alone. If 3D Systems could take even 10% of this market it would represent (450,000 X $400/year =) $180 million/year in gross revenues -- not counting their existing market. At 50% of this market it would represent (2,500,000 X $400/year =) $1 billion/year in gross revenues. I know that the same "trend" is ongoing in the rest of the world, I just do not have the "numbers" to define its potential. This is what 3D Systems is overlooking as I see things.

 

[bigseb]

What Lew said. Need an icon for two thumbs up

 

[bigseb]

I have been using Alibre for a long time. I've got the funds to upgrade my CAD & CAM software and evaluating my options. I design tools and CNC machine parts and am looking for a professional CAD solution is robust and supported by a company with a strong commitment and long term vision for the platform. I imagine I am not alone. What CAD packages would you consider migrating to, and why?

Here in South Africa we are crippled by the exchange rate. Most of these packages are far too expensive to even consider. That said, why upgrade from Geomagic Design in the first place? This product does everything I need it to. And the few issues I have with it are not such that I would by a whole new more expensive package.

Sure, some have extra bells and whistles. However these bells and whistles don't get the job done any quicker. I often think that people compare softwares to such a degree that if software A doesn't follow the same design process as software B then software A just can't be as good, which is very misguided.

I was in touch with a designer in China this morning, we were chatting about work methods and stuff. He told me that he uses UG, Pro-E and Solidworks for his 3D design. I think that's utter madness. Those three are all purported to be higher up the CAD ladder than Geomagic; why use all three then? Surely one would suffice. If he needs all three to do the same as I do in Geomagic then that speaks volumes. My two cents.

I am very happy with Geomagic Design, despite its (very few) flaws. There is only one reason I would consider switching packages and that's to make the complete transition to Linux. That's it.

 

[bigseb]

Just to add to my last post: I really think its time the Linux issue is revisited. Not in this thread but with Geomagic directly. With Alibre it was always a case of 'its too expensive'... well they have plenty money now...

 

[Lew_Merrick]

I was in touch with a designer in China this morning, we were chatting about work methods and stuff. He told me that he uses UG, Pro-E and Solidworks for his 3D design. I think that's utter madness. Those three are all purported to be higher up the CAD ladder than Geomagic; why use all three then? Surely one would suffice. If he needs all three to do the same as I do in Geomagic then that speaks volumes. My two cents.

Sebastian -- I "suggest" that you would find his "requirement" for three CAD packages is driven by his customers -- a situation with which I am intimately familiar.

The scary part is that, as of 1996, STEP contained the basic sketches as well as the extrude/cut, revolve/cut, sweep/cut, and transform (now called loft)/cut operations as part of the neutral format definitions. They have since been removed under the "claim" of intellectual property rights -- a point driving me out of what's left of my mind...

 

[RCH_Projects]

...

The scary part is that, as of 1996, STEP contained the basic sketches as well as the extrude/cut, revolve/cut, sweep/cut, and transform (now called loft)/cut operations as part of the neutral format definitions. They have since been removed under the "claim" of intellectual property rights -- a point driving me out of what's left of my mind...

1996 huh! So do those intellectual property rights expire by 2006, or is this an example of perpetual IP rights?

If "the extrude/cut, revolve/cut, sweep/cut, and transform (now called loft)/cut operation" are IP property who is collecting the royalties (Trolls?)?

With the Trolls so active - how could/can 3DS or anyone make even a marginal move in the directions you and we all covet for Geomagic CAD without expectation of fierce opposition?

How can I disclose my IP since everything I see patent-wise says I will be piled on/cut out, if it has real value?
See also http://www.ask.com/wiki/Antonio_Meucci?o=2801

When did Spy vs. Spy become Troll vs. Troll?
Anyone else have blood squirting out their ears?

GM CAD can get the job done, even if it does have really weird flaws.

 

[RCH_Projects]

GM CAD can get the job done, even if it does have really weird flaws.

With a "personally" notable exception of any kind of gear constraints and contour/spline (cam/follower) constraints requiring supplemental software with steep requirements and learning curves.
Are you looking for those features manovermetal?

 

[Lew_Merrick]

1996 huh! So do those intellectual property rights expire by 2006, or is this an example of perpetual IP rights?

The thing to understand that most Intellectual Property claims are treated as Copyright -- which means the lifespan of the owner + 50 years. When the "owner" is a Class C Limited Liability Corporation, that means that IP Rights last for eternity! (At least here in the U.S.)

In 1986, after a decade-long legal clash, the American Supreme Court ruled that ITT/Renishaw had unique and inalienable right to the kinematic mount (first described in literature by Leonardo DaVinci and mathematically defined by Carlo Alberto Castigliano in the 19th century) for all applications here in the U.S. To the best of my knowledge, no other country allowed this claim to be sustained. However, various free trade acts have broadly expanded such rights around the globe. So long as the "owner" is a recognized and viable Limited Liability Corporation such rights are perpetual. They may (at least here in the U.S.) be passed through stock transactions from Limited Liability Corporate owner to Limited Liability Corporate owner under current U.S. statutes.

 

[JST]

The sole reason for moving away from AD/GM is to be able to say "Yes, we use Solidworks, the file exchange will be seamless and trouble-free".

Whenever there is a different program, especially one with less user base, any problems get blamed on it, and the customers ask you to please just use what they use (or we can find someone who does).

Having used SWX, I am not very fond of it. It has a few things I really like, and others I am not really fond of, and/or think AD/GM does better. The version I have used is the fully loaded one, with everything, including "motion". The reduced level versions I don't know about.

But it is solidly "pro", and nobody can claim you are using a "toy" program if you have it.

Functionally, very similar.

SWX has a lot better integral rendering in the full version than AD/GM. Models can look really slick. They make the integral rendering in AD/GM look crude.

 

[dmckee101]

I was in touch with a designer in China this morning, we were chatting about work methods and stuff. He told me that he uses UG, Pro-E and Solidworks for his 3D design. I think that's utter madness. Those three are all purported to be higher up the CAD ladder than Geomagic; why use all three then? Surely one would suffice. If he needs all three to do the same as I do in Geomagic then that speaks volumes. My two cents.

Sebastian -- I "suggest" that you would find his "requirement" for three CAD packages is driven by his customers -- a situation with which I am intimately familiar.

The scary part is that, as of 1996, STEP contained the basic sketches as well as the extrude/cut, revolve/cut, sweep/cut, and transform (now called loft)/cut operations as part of the neutral format definitions. They have since been removed under the "claim" of intellectual property rights -- a point driving me out of what's left of my mind...

bigseb,
With regard to Chinese designers, the companies I've dealt with all seem to have most of the major CAD packages. I have to wonder though if such wide-spread availability is perpetuated by, shall we call it, a liberal licensing attitude; allowing an economical solution to the diverse software needs.

Lew,
I interpreted the IP protection to be a consideration to protect the designer's IP, not the software maker's methodology. The designer's sketch, the selection and ordering of features, should be IP of the designer. The methodology of the software to render the sketches into features is a utility of the CAD package and this IP belongs to the software manufacturer.

 

[Dcrouch9]

I personally like Autodesk Inventor.

A seat of Inventor with a perpetual license is $7,295. I'm not sure how that compares to SW. I do know it's nowhere near the cost of one of the big 3. That is Catia, Pro-E and Siemens NX.

 

[bigseb]

bigseb,
With regard to Chinese designers, the companies I've dealt with all seem to have most of the major CAD packages. I have to wonder though if such wide-spread availability is perpetuated by, shall we call it, a liberal licensing attitude; allowing an economical solution to the diverse software needs.

Uhm... no comment. :|